A fresh lawsuit has just been filed over the failed en bloc sale of Horizon Towers – and a new chapter in the long-running saga is about to begin.

It’s a suit that’s set to be a closely watched one in Singapore, seen as a litmus test for the possible legal action that can be brought to bear against those involved in this, as well as all other, en bloc sales.

A group of Horizon Towers’ minority owners – those who had originally opposed the sale of the Leonie Hill development – are now suing some members of the original sales committee for their handling of the en bloc sale.

According to documents filed with the High Court, these minority owners are looking to reclaim close to $1 million in legal and administrative costs which they say they’ve incurred during the lengthy fight to keep their homes.

The sale of Horizon Towers – first tabled for $500 million to Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL) in January 2007 – has been one of the most dramatic and long-drawn- out en bloc battles in Singapore’s history. The whole affair spanned more than two years and went back and forth between the Strata Titles Board (STB) and the High Court twice before finally being decided in the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal ruled in April last year that the deal could not go through because the development’s sales committee had failed to fulfil its duty on several counts.

And now, three sets of minority owners – represented by Kannan Ramesh of Tan Kok Quan Partnership – have cited that landmark judgment, as a basis on which to seek reimbursement for the hundreds of thousands they have each spent in this battle.

They have served writs on former sales committee chairman Arjun Samtani and member Tan Kah Gee, alleging that they were ‘key players in the process leading up to the commencement, facilitation, management and finalisation of the collective sale process’.

The minorities, in their claim, allege that Mr Samtani and Mr Tan had ‘pushed for a quick sale of the property for their personal benefit’, because both had bought additional units in Horizon Towers, at the start of the collective sale process, and were keen to profit from that.

Their statement of claim frequently cites the Court of Appeal judgment which had accepted, as facts of the case, that:

# Mr Samtani and Mr Tan had bought additional units in the development;

# The sales committee had received an alternative higher offer of $510 million from Vineyard Holdings, one day before HPL verbally indicated it was willing to purchase the development for $500 million; and

# The sales committee agreed to go ahead and sell Horizon Towers to HPL, in spite of a suggestion from one committee member that it seek the approval of the other consenting owners because property prices had shot up, because it was concerned that the deal would fall through if the other owners were consulted.

Justice Rajah, in his judgment, had also ruled that HPL and the estate’s majority owners should share the legal costs for the second High Court hearing, as well as the Court of Appeal hearing – and that the majority owners should bear the costs for the second STB. He also allowed two minority objectors who did not participate in the final appeal to be given 80 per cent of the costs incurred in the second STB and High Court hearings.

The minority owners are now seeking compensation for the sums not covered by Justice Rajah’s judgment. The three sets of owners are seeking between $117,000 to $370,000 in costs – making for a total claim of more than $800,000.

In his defence, filed with the High Court, Mr Samtani states repeatedly that he was not alone in driving the sale process. He said ‘each and every member of the SC (sales committee) played an equally important role’ and that he ‘did not have any special powers’ that could influence the committee’s decisions.

Mr Samtani also claimed that the committee ‘followed up on all expressions of offer’ for Horizon Towers and that it received no offer better than HPL’s at the relevant time. He said that, on the advice of the committee’s lawyers, Drew & Napier, the committee proceeded with the HPL offer.

As for the additional unit he purchased, Mr Samtani said that it ‘was not for investment, instead it was for use by his son’. He claimed he had disclosed the purchase of an additional unit to Drew, and was not advised by Drew that he had to announce it to the other consenting owners.

Mr Tan, who is represented by TSMP Law Corporation, has requested an extension of time to file his defence. Mr Samtani is represented by N Sreenivasan from Straits Law Practice.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

April 3, 2009Horizon Towers sale offSurprise ruling vindicates stand of minority ownersBy Joyce TeoTHE Court of Appeal halted the contentious Horizon Towers collective sale once and for all on Thursday with a hard-hitting ruling that singled out the estate's sales committee for scathing criticism.The dramatic judgment caught many by surprise and vindicated the four sets of minority owners who opposed the sale from day one - about 3-1/2 years ago, when the idea was first mooted - and spent nearly $1.5 million in legal costs.One of those owners, Mr Hendra Gunawan, told The Straits Times ion Thursday: 'I am very happy that at last we can protect our homes.''We can't do anything about it if 80 per cent agree to sell but they have to do it properly so that everyone's home will be sold at a proper price.'Industry experts are also hailing the decision as a landmark judgment that will set clear parameters for en bloc deals.Thursday's ruling was clear in its condemnation of the way the en bloc process was conducted and was particularly critical of the estate's sales committee.Among a litany of criticism, it pointed to the committee's failure to follow up on a higher offer for the estate, its undue haste in agreeing to a sale price in a rising market and its sloppy procedures in appointing a marketing agent and keeping owners up to speed on the transaction.But perhaps the most serious censure was directed at its failure to take heed of a possible conflict of interest that arose when two owners bought additional units in the estate just before they were appointed to the sales committee.'The sale committee's duty is to achieve the best price under the circumstances, and not just a fair price,' said Mr Karamjit Singh, managing director of Credo Real Estate, which has handled many collective sales but not that of Horizon Towers.The Strata Titles Board, which backed the sale, was also criticised for the way it took too much at face value - whether opinions on price or legal points - when it should have been more questioning. It was also rapped for not being more vigilant on the possible conflict of interest issue regarding sales committee members.Read the full story in today's edition of The Straits Times.http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_358077.html#

THE OBJECTORSFOUR sets of minority owners lasted the full distance to see yesterday's final victory in overturning the Horizon Towers sale.Those left standing after the marathon battle were Madam Ong Sioe Hong, Mr Hendra Gunawan and his wife, Mr Ng Eng Ghee, and Mr Rudy Darmawan, his wife and aunt.Mr Darmawan, an Indonesian living here, represented himself, his wife and his aunt at the Court of Appeal. He is believed to be an executive at a multinational corporation.Mr Gunawan, another Indonesian living here, runs his family's manufacturing business in Indonesia. The 53-year-old and his wife Sulistiowati Kusumo, and two sons have lived in Horizon Towers for eight years.Madam Ong is the managing director of the department store operator Metro and the sister of Mr Jopie Ong, boss of Metro Holdings. Their father is Metro founder Ong Tjoe Kim.Madam Ong, her husband and their two sons have lived in Horizon Towers for more than 20 years.Retiree Mr Ng, was a property developer and is listed as the director of companies such as Hi-Rise Builders and Bideford Realty.The long-running and costly legal battle saw many minority owners fall by the wayside.Two out of nine sets of minority owners - a couple representing themselves and a foreign firm - had dropped out of the fight by the time the case went to the High Court in March last year.By the time the case got to the Court of Appeal stage, more owners had dropped out.Close window----------The Appeal Court judgementTHE Court of Appeal on Thursday reversed the sale of Horizon Towers, ending a 2 1/2-year battle over the estate's collective sale. Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and V. K. Rajah found that the condo's sales committee had breached its duties to unit owners and that the Strata Titles Board (STB) and High Court judge Choo Han Teck had erred in allowing the sale. The original sales committee comprised chairman Arjun Samtani, secretary Wee Hian Siew, and members Tan Kah Gee, Henry Lim, Bharat Mandloi, Claude Reghenzani, Dr Chan Siew Chee, Shahrukh Marfatia and George Eapen. These are the main points of the judgment.

WHERE THE SALES COMMITTEE ERREDBy not acting with due diligence and transparency in appointing the marketing agent, First Tree Properties, which has two shareholders, neither of whom is a licensed valuer. The appointment was done in haste and 'reflected a lack of conscientiousness';By failing to follow up on a higher offer for Horizon Towers made by Vineyard Holdings, a Hong Kong company;By not using the Vineyard offer as leverage in negotiations with Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL), the eventual buyer of the estate;By not getting advice from an independent property expert prior to the sale;By proceeding with the sale to HPL in 'undue haste' in a soaring property market;By ignoring conflicts of interest. Two of the sales committee members - Mr Samtani and Mr Tan - had bought additional units in Horizon Towers with the help of 'substantial' bank loans right before they were appointed to the committee. They did not disclose these purchases. First Tree was also eager to seal a deal before its mandate as marketing agent expired;By not consulting, or even updating, the majority owners on the sale, despite knowing that the property boom had pushed up the market value of the individual units and significantly eroded their estimated premiums from the collective sale.

WHERE THE STB ERREDBy refusing to subpoena Mr Arjun Samtani to testify;By allowing the sales committee to assert 'legal privilege', that is, to not divulge the advice it had received from its lawyers;By not considering whether there was a possible conflict of interest in the sales committee members' purchase of additional units;By not asking whether the price was the best one 'reasonably obtainable';By concluding that the original sales committee had 'acted in good faith' in selling the property to HPL just because the committee had received and relied on legal advice.

- HT= 99 years lease hold, 71 years remaining, [Td12Aug]: 'occupying 204,742 square feet of prime residential land.'- [ST12Aug]: "... If the ($500M) sale had gone through, the owners of the 199 flats would have pocketed $2.3 million while the 11 penthouse owners would have walked away with $4 million or more each."----------

(2007)- 12Feb07: $500M deal was struck (must be sealed by Aug 11) with Hotel Properties and partners (about $815 per sq ft (psf) of potential gross floor area)- Late April 2007: Grangeford (a neighbouring leasehold development five years older) tender sets record asking price of $2,016 psf of potential gross floor area.- May 2007: A group of owners who feel shortchanged by the sale, ... attempted to reverse it.- Late May: Although 33 owners objected to the sale, only nine turned up to file an official objection with the board... four by Mr Philip Fong, three by Tan Kok Quan Partnership, another by Pang & Co, and the last chose to represent himself.- Late May 2007: Mediation hearing at the STB held.- 9June: Strata Titles Board (STB) mediation breakdown..- June 2007: Overseas Union Enterprise inked conditional deal to buy Grangeford at $1,810 psf of potential gross floor area- [ST 12June]: 'eight unit owners had not agreed to the original sale'... ... 'a formal tribunal hearing is expected next month... ... 39 owners have petitioned for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on June18. On the agenda is a move to remove the current nine-member sales committee that brokered and finalised the collective sale..., (and) to elect a new nine-member committee to review the sale... ... law firm Drew & Napier, which is handling the collective sale, has previously indicated that owners have no legal grounds to back out of the sale'- [July6,2007(Fri)]: A ruling on Wednesday set the hearing dates for July 27 to Aug 2.- [July 17,2007]: 'minority owners ... applied to the High Court last week for leave to apply for judicial review ..., ...(originally) scheduled to be heard on 19July. However, it is now uncertain when their application will be heard. A check with the Supreme Court website yesterday shows that their hearing has been struck off the list of summonses to be heard on Thursday before Justice Lee Seiu Kin.- [July 21,2007]- High Court bid by minority owners for more time to present their case to the Strata Titles Board has failed... [purchasers, represented by Senior Counsel K. Shanmugam, argued that if this (ie postpone hearing) happened, the majority owners who consented to the sale would be unlikely to extend the deadline for the en bloc deal.]- [03August2007,2103hrs CNA]: STB dismisses the Horizon Towers collective sale on technical grounds.- [7Aug2007]: "STB ruled on Friday that the collective sale could not go through because certain legal requirements had not been complied with... ... insufficient notices were posted and some documents were not filed."- 6Aug (Mon): The buyers then sent a letter of demand to the majority sellers... asking that the sellers push back the collective sale completion deadline, currently on Aug 11, by four months and file a fresh application for a collective sale order. [9Aug: Michelle Quah]- [7Aug2007]: "failed buyers allege breach of contract ... estimate loss to be $800 million to $1 billion.... urging the sellers to consider alternative courses of action. These include extending the deadline for the sales option beyond this Saturday."- (http://forums.condosingapore.com/showpost.php?p=11092&postcount=105)- [8Aug07]: K Shanmugam says: "The application that was made was faulty, which is what the STB has ruled. So from our perspective, the sellers have not complied with their contractual obligation to make a proper application in court. We therefore decided that we will sue unless the demands ... (are) met... ... "The choices in this case for all parties are quite stark. For us, if we walk away, there are two substantial international parties who had confidence in Singapore and who have invested in this project. And the third, HPL, is a public company answerable to shareholders. And if they walk away and do nothing, how are they going to answer to their shareholders? And it's a substantial loss."- [8Aug]: "... (HPL) claiming up to $1 billion in lost profits. The extraordinary claim works out to about $5.78 million for each unit..."- [11Aug(Td)]: "... ... A source familiar with en bloc sales said the technical hitch revolves around some of the names of the sellers in the sales purchase agreement. The attention to detail in preparing such documents has been overshadowed by the frenzy in clinching lucrative deals, he said. "A seasoned developer would have gone through details like the names of sellers with a fine toothcomb, although it is not the developer's duty to do so.'It's all about the old-school ideal of wanting a water-tight deal so that a sour aftertaste can be avoided."... how can this messy affair be resolved?... That opportunity will come in two weeks when they (sellers) vote on whether the deadline for the failed sale should be extended. ... ... Unless two home truths sink in: Don't look back once you have sold your property, even if the price goes up after the deal has been done. And don't treat your property as a house, treat it as a home. In a land where asset enhancement and upgrading are uttered freely, the Horizon Towers episode shows what can happen when frenzy overtakes reason, when making money overwhelms values and when the home is treated as a lottery. A sobering thought as we celebrate 42 years of independence."- [12Aug(ST)]: " ... the sales committee will appeal against the Aug 3 decision of the Strata Titles Board (STB) dismissing the $500M sale on technical grounds. If the appeal succeeds, another sale application can be made to the STB, but not under the terms - and price - of the old agreement as that died yesterday. Yesterday's decision - after two days of intense legal meetings - could also fend off a threatened lawsuit from the intended owners, Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority. ..."-adapted: http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/BgSty_146593_2.html-----------'Knowledge infopage':- This was the first time in seven years a collective property sale had been overturned as a result of objections by a minority of owners.- Legally, if an application to STB does not comply with requirements laid out in the Act, the board does not have the jurisdiction to grant an order, even if there are no objectors.[4Aug].- DrMinority: "Bear in mind the law states very clearly - majority owners cannot object and therefore have absolutely NO SAY in any STB hearing. Only minority owners can do that." (http://forums.condosingapore.com/showpost.php?p=11368&postcount=220)- sources told The Straits Times that cases of irregularities were presented by the objecting lawyers... included a notice put up on 11Jul06 saying that owners with 80.81 per cent of share values in Horizon Towers had signed the sale agreement. A sale needs 80 per cent consensus. But only 79 per cent had agreed to the sale at that time, lawyers said.- [4Aug]: "STB's rejection of the sale was unexpected - as was its brief, two-line judgment delivered after lunch yesterday... ... "- [4Aug'Tday']: "As en bloc sale prices skyrocketed, owners who had originally consented to the deal joined in the dissenting voices, pointing out that the $500-million deal no longer reflected the condominium's 'true value'."- [4Aug]: 'HPL's stock fell 20 cents to close at $4.68 yesterday. STB's rejection of the sale was unexpected - as was its brief, two-line judgment delivered after lunch yesterday.'- [5Aug]: "WHEN Mr Hendra Gunawan and three of his neighbours tried to engage lawyers to block the collective sale of Horizon Towers, three firms turned them down flat.All felt they had no case. The last time the Strata Titles Board (STB) ruled in favour of minority owners was seven years ago... ... Although 33 owners objected to the sale, only nine turned up to file an official objection with the board in late May... ...Lawyers, however, say that the contract to sell was conditional upon STB's approval. That would have protected the majority owners from a breach of a commercial contract.... ...One lawyer who spoke on condition of anonymity said: 'This is a big area, and if the potential loss to the buyer is $500 million, then they might be willing to spend $1 million to test the case in court."- [8Aug]: "The wrangle is also striking for the number of top-flight legal eagles it has attracted."- [9Aug]: "The sellers' lawyers and marketing agent First Tree Properties could also be in the firing line as the owners could counter-sue them for not getting the paperwork right, said an observer. 'The case shows that there's no incentive to be a consenting owner as you can end up being a potential defendant.'... ... 'it may scare off owners and kill the booming collective sale market'.... 'It's a big Pandora's box.'"- [12Aug ST]: "'We heard many views from home owners who are anxious over the prospect of litigation. The feeling was that they did not do anything wrong but they are faced with potential lawsuits with huge claims against them.' MS JOYCE TAN, Horizon Towers sales committee member."

Monday, August 20, 2007

Re: Buyers sue Horizon Towers sellers for $800m to $1bA summary of sentiments (some minor non-material edits made): (suitable for law junkies/ general entertainment only, no warranty on factuality, should be considered fiction for now; disclaimer below)http://forums.condosingapore.com/showthread.php?t=2093--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Early Aug07)#171: Tangled web of greed, deceit and sufferings.... good recipe for long serial drama!http://forums.condosingapore.com/showpost.php?p=11307&postcount=171------#211: "what's the outcome? It's 4.20 already!"------#212: "how typical. SC is not even there to stand up for the majority against the buyer. they have done everything within their means, yet they are so easily swayed by the media and A&G. how disappointing."------#218: aiyah. you think Lee Kuan Yew will allow them to make 200 residents bankrupt? all talk.http://forums.condosingapore.com/showpost.php?p=11365&postcount=218------#268: The case was rejected on technical ground doesn't necessarily mean that STB only found technical error as ground to reject the case. I believe all they are saying that "technical error" constitute "sufficient" reason (but may not be the only reason(s)) for rejection.------#269: Agree, STB may not have complete their detailed evaluation of the whole case. They could have stop their detailed examination of the application once they found technical error sfficient as cause for rejection.------Why are the majority owners of Horizon Towers afraid of HPL's potential lawsuit?If, and when, HPL decides to proceed with legal proceedings, the majority's lawyers (Tan Rajah & Cheah) must have surely advised them that they can counter-sue Drew & Napier for profesisonal negligence?- Drew & Napier, and not the majrotiy, should be held responsible for the technical errors that caused the STB application to be dismissed.... Assuming the majority are 'properly advised' by counsel and they decide to bring in Drew & Napier as a third party to the proceedings, I have serious doubts as to whether HPL will proceed to litigate.If HPL does decide to take this matter further, Drew & Napier will be forced to defend not only themselves, but also (coincidentally) the interests of the majority. Having the best litigation firm in Singapore on your side and fighting the case for you, for free, can't possibly be a bad thing, can it?HPL is simply trying to scare the majority into extending the 11 August deadline. The majority should call HPL's bluff - stand up for your rights and be confident in the fact that you do not have the obligation to extend the longstop date.http://forums.condosingapore.com/showpost.php?p=11501&postcount=276------I feel sympathy for the majority owners. An error in filings committed by their lawyer, Drew and Napier turns out to be a 1-billion-dollar lawsuit. The lawyers are supposed to double check all the documnets before submission to the STB.http://forums.condosingapore.com/showpost.php?p=11497&postcount=272------... the deal is conditional upon STB approval, which was not granted. what dishonourable reneging is there? HPL already had one bite of the cherry, in bringing forward the STB hearing from Sept to July. Now they are not happy with STB's decision and want another bite of the cherry? Is that fair for the minority owners?http://forums.condosingapore.com/showpost.php?p=11509&postcount=283------#293: Drew & Napier failed to ensure that STB application was 'error-free', and must therefore be held responsible for the twarted sale. Law firms don't charge their clients fees simply to just sign off on documents - they need to discharge their responsibilities and be accountable to their clients.http://forums.condosingapore.com/showpost.php?p=11526&postcount=293------#296: Why feel sympathy???Its simple. Just sell the condo to the buyers and continue with the en bloc process. Then the $1B lawsuit will be withdrawn.If something wrong with the documents then solve that particular documents problem. Why cancelled the whole thing??? They signed it then they had to sell it. Its their commitment from the start.------#297: ... As far as I read from newspapers, the STB has not stated which particular documents/areas have problem. How can a re-submission to the STB be done before knowing what the problem is? ...It's the STB that "cancelled" the whole deal.------#299: "... To send in a STB application and not knowing that some new units had recently changed hands (which can be easily checked) and thus have new registered owners, it either indicates the lawyer's "carelessness" and "slopyness" or it was an obvious 'hooha'... ."http://forums.condosingapore.com/showpost.php?p=11534&postcount=299------#300[Ice]: "... ... they should just grant the 4 month extension, appeal to the High Court and re-submit their application to the Title Board. That's probably the smartest thing they can do at the moment. Many of the majority owners are feeling the heat and cannot sleep peacefully at night... "------#301: Whether its drew and napier fault or not is not relevant in THIS lawsuit that HPL is bringing. The majority owners can sue drew and napier separately for not doing their job but HPL can only sue the owners as part of any sale and purchase agreement. The breach of contract is not between drew and napier and HPL. It's between the majority owners and HPL.------#304[DrMinority]: "Again, things are not simple contractually. When any majority owner sign the CSA, they give up many of their rights to the SC. While they might have done nothing to jeopardise the sale, the very signing of the CSA has damned the lot of majority owners collectively. Lawyers are not going to try to decide who's innocent and who's greedy in the majority group, they're just going to sue the group because they can, under the sale and purchase agreement."------#308: this will teach people to be more kiasu in future. don't sign the CSA, hope that 80% of other owners are stupid enough to do so, then sit back and enjoy the benefits of a successful sale, have the option to try to block an unlucrative sale by raising objections at STB hearing, all without the risk of being sued by the buyer for "breach of agreement" should the sale fall through.------#310: ... I honestly believe some of the minority owners do have a genuine interest to protect their homes and even though some of them object because of financial reasons, they were smart to do so. ... ... If I am one of the minority owners, I will be extremely angry if the deal actually goes through. Why? Because even though I might get around $2.3 million for the sales, I can't actually get a similar deal elsewhere in Singapore nowadays. Seriously, where else in Singapore could you get a 2400 square feet unit located in the heart of downtown Singapore for a price of $2 million? Prices everywhere else in Singapore are also skyrocketing and it will completely jeopardise the minority owners' choice for finding a replacement home. Regardless of what people think, HT IS INDEED THE BEST PLACE TO CALL HOME!... ...------#318[DrMinority]: "... compliance with the administrative aspects of the statutes does not result in approval because there is the merits of the case to consider (financial loss, bad faith, methods of distribution etc). Unfortunately, it never reached this point; the case was dismissed for technical issues... "------#326: I am a resident/owner of Horizon Towers and wish to give some background regarding our enbloc. It started from the escalating costs of maintaining the estate- from security guards to utilities to replacements of old equipment. The owners here are a mixed group with retirees, widows, working people, both locals and foreigners.When we eventually reached the stage when we called the EGM to vote for the enbloc, we were given presentations by one of the top law firms in Singapore, Drew and Napier, and an enthusiastic agent, First Tree whose commission will be paid by the Purchaser. My neighbours and I were assured that we are in good hands.Markets changed over the months and hindsight is always clearer. Yes there were unhappy residents but all of us know we had to stick to the deal. The STB dismissal was totally unexpected. Of course we are shocked. Nobody wants to enter into a lawsuit especially when we believe we have done nothing wrong.Emotions aside, there are many considerations for the sales committee in coming to a decision. They are volunteers who are not paid a cent more and yet they are burdened with such a heavy responsibility affecting the lives of so many neighbours.I am sure in a law-abiding and socially conscious country like Singapore, we will sort this out amicably.------#327:Indeed, let us all put our emotions aside and just look at what is unfolding before us:Big gun laywers becoming too big for themselves, trying to use the media to "threaten" HT residents. surely that doesn't speak too well of him. again, all these are just scae tactics. why do you think he is playing with the media to "threaten" the residents? it is very simple. he realises that he has a weak case.Seriously, how does HPL quantify $1B worth of losses? can HPL be so sure that if the sale went through and a new condo is constructued, the property market will be as good as it is currently?Likewise, all these "problems" stemmed from Drew & Napier's incompetence and professional negligence in making sure everything was done properly. How is it the fault of the residents (both SC and majority)? - this is one point which the majority and SC need to know. Don't be fooled by the media reports. they are merely SCARE TACTICS. In any event, just bring in D&N as third party to the action! the majority has NOTHING to loose.THe more A&G plays with the media, the more it shows how weak a case they have.------#330: ... If those who signed still keep their word, they can extend the date for completing the sale by 4 months.The minorities have no case. The STB didn't rule in favor of minorities on the price issue but some technical issue.So law abiding citizens of HT should show that ethics is greater than their greed by letting the sale go through.But when it comes to big $$$ who cares about ethics.------#331: what makes you think the entire process has been ethical in the first place?------#333: Waiting for STB details to be out..... if advantage to seller, fight the buyer. If disadvantage, extend another 4 months and resubmit the forms.......------#335(response to #300): I advice HT Owners better to carry on with the sales.The $1B lawsuits is scarry boy and the buyer surely got the advantage in this case.If the buyers win, not only you did not get the money instead you lose your home and a few million $ more.Better sell it now and hurry buy replacement condo before the prices rise again and make you even more unaffordable.The longer HT owners hold the en bloc process the more money you need to spend for replacement condo.Aiyoh...... HT OWNERS WHAT A MESS YOU HAVE DONE!!! CHI LIANG !!!------#337(response to #335): It's people like you that define the word "pushover".If I were a developer, I'll thank my lucky stars that there are idiots like you living in Singapore who I can screw over. All I need is a fancy big-shot lawyer to frighten the hell out of you and make you sign away your rights and your home.Should the Horizon Towers owners simply concede because of a baseless litigation threat? Of course not.------#338(response to #337): I agree. all these low-lying scare tactics by these big shot lawyers are simply uncalled for.------#340: ... how can HPL sue the residents?! they have done everything they could do, if not for Drew & Napier.So even if they sue the majority, the majority can always bring in Drew & Naiper as third party.and in the end, A&G and D&N won't sue each other because of bad publicity and will settle out of court.------#343: And to serve a writ to the majority on the eve of national day?? - clearly, Allen & GLehill have no respect for the nation. couldnt they just wait till friday? why spoil everyone's national day.------#344: A&G have no choice but to serve a legal letter as a threat, because they are afriad the majority will not extend the contract. but the contract gives the majority the DISCRETION. it is not MANDATORY.A&G's legal letter together with all the media reports are just part of their ploy to force the majority to extend the contract.------#345(response to #337): Will you pay the $1B lawsuits in favor of HT owners if the HT owners lose this case???------#348: Allen & Gledhill will be laughing at the majority if they extend the contract. because they have no case. and were using baseless threats to get their way.------#373: Some joker members in old SC including a medical doctor actually sneered and laughed when told Grangeford were asking for $ 1,200, then $ 1,400 psf for en bloc in early 2007. They scolded that Grangeford owners were fools, greedy and not understand property market.Now, who are the idiots??? Grangeford sold for $ 1,860 psf. These are the smart ones, no good price, no sale, else no get home at heart of city. Patience has virtues and definitely won't make them look stupid like the old SC members who rushed the sale.Majority should just go to these SC members and ask for accountability.------#382: Wa! they (SC) have so much money to buy a porsche, bmw and jaguar?! they must have had a second unit in HT and wanted the sale to go through no matter what.------#383(response to #382): you are spot on! a couple of the old SC had in fact 2 units in HT.------#384(response to #383): 3 of the old members.------#386: ... But many of this majority sign CSA without knowing what writen there..they just being told what the CSA is about and what minimum price they looking at... ... Stupid!!!------11Aug 2007: (date stamp by comment analysis)#459[Mr Funny]: STAug 11: Horizon Towers sellers in meetings as deadline looms By Joyce Teo, Property Correspondent"... Horizon Towers' marketing agent, First Tree Properties, took on the job without seeking a commission from the sellers, whom it was representing. In an unusual move, it was instead going to take a cut from the buyers. ..."http://forums.condosingapore.com/showpost.php?p=11808&postcount=459------#481: Of course HPL are bullying the HT owners what? Can they afford a PR fallout when 200 innocent families/mostly Singaporeans or PRs get emotional & also engage best lawyers & counter sue? HPL & other buyers agreed to the clause that the sellers have a right to decide whether to extend beyongd 11 Aug or not right? So how? Bullying for sure or not?------#485: if the case does go to court, OBS will also have to face rigorous cross-examination by a whole army of top lawyers acting for the defendants. hope he and HPL can take the heat then. and hopefully no embarrassing and damaging revelations surface during the process that might irreparably damage the reputation, goodwill and PR of HPL.------#503: Is it true the lawyer representing HPL was a former MP?How about tat? Last time meet the people, shake their hands, hear their problems, help solve problems but now- what happen sue people, take their homes, their money, anything whatever he is being paid for to do his job.Who to trust these days?------#506(response to #503): thats K. Shanmugam. he is still MP Sembawang GRC since 1988. maybe HT owners should meet him - chk Singapore Parliment website and get the right time for 'meet-the-people'. but he may not be there..very busy a lot of suing to do,,, no time for people problems ...------#507(response to #506): how does he sleep at nit?------#508(response to #507): not with wife. hes divorced. maybe with obs.------#509(response to #508): lol, tat explains everything.------#510(response to #485): maybe OBS ask whoever the snr guy in hpl and drew to get his guys to make mistakes then when stb dismiss hpl can sue; spend 1mil but get a 500mil estate.very good businessman as cocky as duraiht owners sitting ducks so stupid so poor thinglesson for all - dont deal with big boys better support sme------#513: Everything is fair in love, war and enbloc.------#517: so what now? deadline passed already. HPL going to sue? They cant go back on their words already right?------#521(response to #517): history repeats itself, another nkf-type court case. drew vs allen, davindar vs shumu ngum.------#523: they ('sellers') caused massive losses to HPL, so they have to pay the price, even if it means being made bankrupt.------#524(response to #521): hmm...wonder if davinder will be cross examined by shanmugam if D&N are sued as 3rd party. that would be interesting.------#525(response to #523): ya like the US guy who sue drycleaner for millions over loss of earnings coz he got no pants??now he got no job!!!------#526(response to #517): deadline is 12mn tonite. not passed yet.------#527(response to #525): see...the price of making expensive mistakes.------#541: The only confirmed winning party is HPL. Can't see how they can ever lose this case. HT majority, be prepared to sleep in the streets.------#544: 15 more mintues to go...... would suggest majority of HT qqqqquickly go and sign now before it is too late...------ #545(response to #544): yeah, do whatever HPL wants you to do. save your skins while you still can.------#546(response to #541): Why is there these people keep on bashing majority that they will lose... ... HPL threat is baseless..as their Lawyer will points out..and will be proven in the court..So for Bullies out there.. TOO BAD..------#547(response to #546): How can any lawyer be better than Shanmugam? Stop daydreaming.------#549: Its all empty threats to scare the majority. HT has asked for 2 weeks grace period not to extend but to hold an EGM to consider extending, I believe. Anyone has more details?------#551: Seems there are so many better lawyers in this forum than those fighting the case.------#552: HPL is not responding to the request just yet and probably never will..because if they grand the request is a clear sign that their empty threat is just that.. EMPTY.------#561: ... Both Buyer and Seller playing their hands well and awaits for STB to come out and lay out the reasons of the STB dismissal.. , Well played gentleman, well played.------#562: No deadline was set by HT for HPL to grant HT's request for 2 week grace period. The ball is in HPL's court now. However, I would imagine that HT will still proceed with their EGM in 2 week's time as previously reported, to vote on the deadline extension issue.------#563: What is the normal time frame for STB to give detailed reasons for dismissal of applications?------#567[DrMinority](response to #459 news report): "The fact that First Tree is paid their services by HPL IS an unusual practice and I am a bit concerned about that. Rationally, owners would hire an agent to represent and protect their interests. They'd pay the agent for this service.If the agent is paid for by the seller (may not be HPL but whoever the winning bidder is), then are there conflicts of interest here?..."------#577: HT owners are brave and fortune favors the brave. Sure winner!!!------#579(response to #567): In fact when HPL obtained the option in January, they put down a 1% deposit of $5m to tie up the entire property for almost one month, whereupon HT cannot sign with other buyers. Remember this is a fast rising market. Clear case of FT(First Tree) conflict of interest (and even D&N)- they advised HT to accept the option WITH ONLY $500K FORFEITED if option not exercised by HPL. That is very unusual!------12Aug 2007: (date stamp by comment analysis of #580)------#584: Both Sellers and Buyers do not know the details. How can Buyers sue for Breach of Contract? On what basis?Buyer as a partner in the contract should really try to work with Sellers instead of demanding and threatening law suits of missed earnings, etc. This is pushing them to the corner. Resorting to such measures can back-fire.------#593[Realist]: "... human nature. And if it is legally possible that the sale was in fact void due to a technical reason, then the matter has to be settled privately or in court.To cite an example which I came across. Option papers were signed but only one of the owners instead of both owners signed. Option papers were therefore void. Can the original owners then ask for more or the buyers asks to change the conditions of the option papers if a fresh option has to be isssued again?"------#597[DrMinority]: (ST12Aug2007):... THE legal battle over the Horizon Towers collective sale entered a new stage when majority owners decided not to extend the sale agreement that expired yesterday. Instead, the sales committee will appeal against the Aug 3 decision of the Strata Titles Board (STB) dismissing the $500 million sale on technical grounds. If the appeal succeeds, another sale application can be made to the STB, but not under the terms - and price - of the old agreement as that died yesterday. Yesterday's decision - after two days of intense legal meetings - could also fend off a threatened lawsuit from the intended owners, Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority.------#598(response to #593): Then how did they declare that 80% signed. Sneaky HT owners wanted kept feet in both places...just in case price increased. If market crashed keep quiet & take 500M$.------#601(response to #598): All papers go to lawyer and agent. They calculated the % right?These ppl are paid for the work.------#608: the famous NKF sue SPH case: Shanmugam represents NKF, Davinder represents SPH------#610(response to #608): wrong. These are 2 separate cases.In the defamation suit, TT Durai/NKF (represented by Michael Hwang) vs SPH represented DavinderIn the civil case, Shanmugam represented NKF vs TT Durai represented by Sant Singh.------#617[DrMinority]: "... Rampant speculation over the HT case just shows that: (a) quite a few readers here are obviously embroiled in enbloc situations on their own (b) some of them are worried that the same might happen to them.A LOT of people do not read their CSAs. A LOT of people give the SC rights to negotiate with developers to draft out the SPA which might open majority owners to lawsuits. And to be fair, reading a CSA or SPA is a migraine-inducing exercise at best. People just prefer to trust the SC and sign on the line, and wait for the cash.If there is a moral to the HT story, it's that no owner should take things for granted, especially when SCs are notorious in letting money blind everything else (why else volunteer?).I honestly do not believe HT will be the only enbloc nightmare in the months to come.------#621: I personally find First Tree incompetent and useless as marketing agents. Woe to those estates considering engaging them for enbloc! BUt in their defence, I understand that HPL was not brought in by First Tree. The sales committee and First Tree tried in vain to solicit a buyer for Horizon Towers for 10 months but to no avail. HPL stepped into the picture like 1-2 months just before the CSA expiry date. Seems that HPL was the one who initiated contact with the sales comm or First Tree. But then again, it could all have been an elaborate plot....who knows?------#627: If HPL's suit is dismissed, I am so sure they will appeal. They and their partners have money flowing out from their ears. And if this happen, it will drag on for years. I hope the majority owners can tahan. Maybe by then their property only worth $300 millions and they still gotta pay HPL one billion dollars.Make $2.3 millions still don't want. Want to lose $5.78 millions is it? You make the choice.This saga better than Channel 8 drama.------#638: Aiyoh, how many times must this be emphasized. Minorities did not win. Case dismissed based on technicality.------#641(response to #638): The minority won because the giant was cought SLEEPING. Now the Giant has woke up and prepared for battle!! LETS SEE!!!------#643(response to #641): Goliath was wide awake when David slew him.------#644(response to #643): David won because he was a righteous man with faith. ...---#645: HT CONSENTING owners REJOICE, May your good fortune bring you happiness, And all that Shan and Co may confer on youSingapore a city of POSSIBILITIES (->#674)------#648(response to #644): David won because he was not afraid of the big bully.------#659(response to #648): Hello, David won because he was righteous lah. You not pay attention to the lesson. Go read your bible.------#674(response to #645): If HPL and the other two international players not to sue majority and their representative with all their mights, they will be in even biiger trouble to their share holders. Don't you get it?------#675(response to #674): I see, so they have no choice but to sue. If they win, shareholders are happy. If they lose, they will have an excuse for the shareholders.------#676: This saga would be an interesting case study in game theory.------#691: What about those owners in the majority group of owners who actually wanted to honor deal and is willing to extend the deadline? HPL must need to find a way to sort this out. It seems a bit unfair to these group of owners to be dragged into this dangerous situation of potentially made bankrupt because there is insufficient vote to form the majority to grant the extension.------#692(response to #691): Tough. Honestly - if you sign on the CSA you agree to be bound by its terms and conditions, including letting the SC form an SPA and with both agreements, allowing any majority owner to be sued by the buyer for various reasons.If you want to put your fate in the hands of someone else, be prepared to be dragged through hell.------#697: HPL must prove its case. If the CSA was illegal from the start, i.e. the 80% majority not achieved before going for Public Tender of the sale, which contravenes statutory requirements (i.e. the law), then there is no enforceable contract between HT majority owners and HPL because the rights of the minority owners must be protected by law. If there is no enforceable contract in the eyes of the law, then HPL's lawsuit must fail, and they cannot sue for damages because they are deemed to have exercised due diligence by the courts to first determine the legality of the CSA and whether HT majority owners are in fact in a legal position to transact with them in the Sale of the Property in the first place. This is the basic principle of Caveat Emptor, or buyer beware.------#699: In the event that HPL's lawyers for the sale (not Allen and Gledhill, by the way, who were engaged by HPL much later to protect HPL's interests), failed to check the legality of the CSA and did not advise properly that HT majority owners were in fact not in a legal position to sign the Sale and Purchase Agreement, then HPL can sue their lawyers (acting for the collective sale) for professional negligence and damages due to lost of profits of $1b. After all, conveyancing lawyers are paid to do exactly that, to conduct legal searches to ensure that the property sale agreement is enforceable and legal.------#700(response to #699): HPL conveyancing laywer is Lee & Lee. Seems like lots of dirty laundry will be exposed.http://forums.condosingapore.com/showpost.php?p=12170&postcount=700------#702(response to #700): Lee & Lee?!? Alama!------#703: Both parties putting on a brave face. God knows who is acting. Suspense thriller.------#708: IMHO only threat to sue. Finally lawsuit may not come.------#709: Settle out of court lah and save face for all parties.------#710(response to #699): It seems to me that both Drew & Napier and Lee & Lee have not exercised due care in checking the documents. Do you think HPL will sue Lee & Lee for professional negligence?------#711(response to #708): The sue will definitely come lah. Where got people want to lose $600m profit??? If below $50 the lawsuit will propably not come but this is $600m profit. BTW lee and lee will not be sued because documental error can be corrected. They are suing for owners who do not want to continue selling!!!------#712(response to #711): I agree, the sue will definitely come. But, wait a minute, why HPL hires A&G to sue instead of sticking to lee & lee? For HT, they have also changed their lawyer for the STB matters, from D&N to Tan and Rajah, why?Implies both HPL and HT know that their conveyancing lawyers have committed some errors, so they change to new firms.Something very strange here.------#720: Can't believe a Member of Parliment is paid to sue people and throw them out of their homes over errors in paperwork! Seems quite ruthless.------#721(response to #720): then the homeless can go to Sembawang GRC ask MP for subsidized housing. Sure agree. All planned out.Singapore - a city of possibilities.------#727(response to #712): The STB application was dismissed on points of law. Whose job(s) was it to check and ensure that the CSA and STB application was legal in the first place? "Non-compliance with statutory requirements" is just a nice way of saying "illegal".------#729(response to #727): So I guess HT sellers are not liable. If giant lawyers can't spot the errors what can poor HT sellers do. Point to be noted for dismissing case.------#736: so before the sc decided not to extend the deadline, was there a poll by the majority? can we say the majority had agreed to this course of action?------#740(response to #729): Precisely. An illegal contract is no contract. Case dismissed.------#753: In the heat of the fever, property agents and lawyers are pushing through enbloc sales. Its big money for them. Look at the classifieds - so many ads with 'enbloc potential'. Suddenly there are special training courses for property agents to handle enbloc sales. Seems to be no end until maybe now. If anything else, it is a good thing to halt all this enbloc craze.------#755(response to #753): The encloc is the main driver for the super property boom for the last 6-8 months. uncertainity on enbloc together with uncertainity in stock markets, many are quietly sending urgent message to their agents: seriously consider any offer and do your best to make a sale ASAP! You may not see asking price coming down dramatically as yet, but ask the agent whether there are buyers out there!------#761: The contract is illegal because the enbloc process was illegal from the start.------#763(response to #761): so who is responsible for this being illegal - the owners, lawyer or agent. heard that enbloc sales is still undergoing procedural development or based on precedence. is tis tru? so every case adds to the practice but there is no law?------#764(response to #763): who do you think is responsible for checking for compliance with the law? owners, lawyer or agent?------#766(response to #764): isn't this wats going round and round? lawyer & agent are the pros hired to do the job. so they are responsible. but owners hired them so owners responsbile. same goes for buyers side. everyone is responsible. so everyone breach contract. its a tangled web.------#767(response to #761): "OK, explain how is the en-bloc process illegal from the start? Are you also saying all en-blocs are illegal? For people like you, the saying "A little knowledge is an dangerous thing" certainly hold true.The STP did not reject the application because it was illegal. It is rejected because certain statutory requirements arising from the sellers were not met. This certainly does not make the agreement between the sellers and buyers illegal.HPL had and will force the sellers to meet their commitments or face the consequences of breaching their contract.------#768(response to #767): I am not saying all en-blocs are illegal. I am saying that this particular en-bloc process is illegal, based on news reports of the STB hearing that only 79% majority was achieved when the public tender for en-bloc sale first went out. Since 80% was not achieved at that time, the ensuing en-bloc process was rendered illegal.The STB rejected the application because "statutory requirements were not met", which is a nice way of saying "illegal". Well, that means that the contract between sellers and buyers can never be enforced because the en-bloc process was illegal from the start. Although not the buyer's fault, the buyer is also deemed to have (not) exercised due diligence through their conveyancing lawyer to conduct a thorough legal search to verify, among other things, the basic legality of the en-bloc process and the proper legal capacity of the sellers to enter into a sale and purchase agreement with them (Caveat Emptor).

Is this fair? that through no fault of the buyer, the sale is frustrated? Well, there are two ways to look at this. One, that it is unfair to the buyer, and that he is entitled to claim damages for lost profits. Alternatively, we can look at it in terms of the inherent risk in any business transaction. Buyer knew there were risks involved and was prepared to take those risks. STB approval is never a guaranteed thing, even though it (disapproval) is commonly perceived to be a remote possibility.

Did seller deliberately sabotage the STB application by screwing up the en-bloc process from the start? Unlikely. This was even before the en-bloc went on public tender, and way before HPL even entered the picture as a purchaser. This illegality or "technicality" would have worked to HPL's advantage had property prices headed south instead. Then, they would be all too happy to accept STB's dismissal of the application on "technical grounds" without a murmur.

HPL can certainly sue for breach of contract if the contract was legally enforceable and if they have sufficient grounds to prove their case. However, if the contract is legally unenforceable due to the reasons stated above, then it is likely that the contract is fundamentally invalid and therefore there is no breach of contract, and consequently, no grounds for any lawsuit.------#778[DrMinority]: Additional comments from Mr Siew Kum Hong, Nominated MP, on the HT case (Source: http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/)------#787: "When both parties are mistaken on a basic and fundamental element of the contract: the contract is void from the start if the mistake is of such significance that, in the words of English case law, it is a "false and fundamental assumption" of the contract (R. v. Ontario Flue-cured Tobacco Growers', 1965)." =:= In this case, both HPL and HT owners are mistaken on a basic and fundamental element of the contract, that 80% majority had been achieved at the public tender of the HT en-bloc sale when only 79% had been achieved. This is a fundamental element of the contract because STB approval can never be granted with this "non-conformance to statutory requirements" that cannot retroactively be rectified. Hence, the contract between HPL and HT is void from the start. ------#793: How on earth could sellers correct the 79% majority at the point in time of Public Tender of en-bloc sale? Travel back in time to July 2006 and get more signatures?------#795(response to #793): Its even worse if they did that. Illegal to call for tender when 80% not achieved. Could end up behind bars for fraud.------#797:... ... These shallow people are finding ways and means to get out of the original agreement. I would pay for ringside seats when Shanmugam fry their asses when questioning them in court.------#798(response to #797): When are tickets going on sale? Block a seat for me too. Want to have a good look at them. Should know so as not to enter into any transaction with them bcoz like chameleons can change color what.------#800(response to #798): Ya. Lesson to learn for all. Don't have anything to do with HPL. Stay in HDB the best. Always protected.------#805(response to #797): OBS's ass getting equally fried in court will also be entertaining. You'll be sticking around for that too? LOL.------#806(response to #805): Why is OBS involved? It's HPL what. HPL is a public-listed company.------#808(response to #806): OBS is the Managing Director of the company HPL, and he acts on behalf of the company as Plaintiff in the suit. He prepares and signs the affidavit and will be subject to cross-examination in court by lawyers representing the defendants. So, ass-frying cross examination in court applies equally to plaintiff and defendant alike.------#809(response to #808): MY guess is that OBS will not take the stand, but another Director instead.------#814(response to #778): Unfortunately, Mr Siew is very very wrong.Even if High Court reverses STB decision, it only means that the application will go back to STB to be heard on the substantive issues eg. bad faith etc. The application was only part-heard when STB gave this ruling. So there is no possibility of High Court giving an order for the collective sale.Second, even if that happens, the majority have chosen not to extend. This means that the Sale and Purchase agreement is dead and there is no reason to go back to STB for the continuation of the hearing. ...

What makes him think that the onus is on the sellers to appoint separate counsel to advise them individually? That can only mean more fees to be spent by the owners and possibly more differing legal views. The lawyers earning such fees must give the advice - to every individual owner if they so require - they are paying for it too! And the lawyers must know who is paying their bill - the majority owners, not merely the Sale Committee. Unfortunately, lawyers seems to act in the best interests of the SC by drafting the CSA and giving advice, which is beneficial for the SC but detrimental to the owners. That is not ethical at all!The HT case is not so simple as "Grangeford getting more, HT is jealous".

What happened in the HT case was conflict of interests by old SC, lawyers, agent. They wanted the deal to go through without any interference from the owners. So they withheld information and bull-dozed their way through the deal, although they knew the owners would not be happy with the price as it did not reflect the market. HT owners did not know of the deal until it came out in the papers! It reeks of bad faith all round.All this happened before Grangeford came out in the papers. Don't believe the propaganda in the papers. It is just a ploy to paint the HT owners as greedy but in actual fact, they were taken for a ride and were ridden roughshod over by the SC and the professionals they hired.------#818: ... ... Law is not as clear cut as we think as with the judicial process. Contracts in the same way may not mean exactly what we think they mean even with the best legal advice. A daughter once commented on her father who was a judge, saying “Daddy, you are so good because you put so many bad people behind bars”. The judge replied “It is not how many people I put behind bars that matter, but how many cases I judge correctly”.------#820(response to #818): Wow!At least there are educated opinions here instead of those dung slamming fellows. Let's try to discuss this as objectively as possible. If one has a view bring it up without getting personal or without first understanding the inside story. This is a forum not a gossip place.------#821(response to #814): I second this.------#823[DrMinority]: ... Right from the start there were problems with the start of the CSA, ie the signature collection. One of them was that the units were owned by companies, and the CSA was signed by the director of the companies, but in actual fact the CSA needs to go through the board of directors' meeting before the CSA can be signed.Furthermore, some of the signatures on the CSA were found to be different from the owners' own signatures (ie possibly forged).------#825: Once the litigation starts, it could easily be the best shows in 2008. All the major TV networks and newspapers will follow the the legal battle.------#849[story from TODAYonline]: Money, poker and reputation at play Weekend • August 11, 2007 P N Baljihttp://forums.condosingapore.com/showpost.php?p=12570&postcount=849------#852: The truth of who made the mistakes will surface in court. Along with other *ahem* juicy tidbits. Please be patient.------#858: Contract cannot be honoured, how? Who is are the true guilty parties here?------#867: Once again I repeat, this "technical error" in itself is no big deal. Why not just correct the error and re-apply again to the STB?The problem is the greedy owners of HT want to have their cake and eat it. The value of HT had doubled and now because of errors they themselves made, they want to back off from the contract - thinking that lucky them, they will now make more money.Now HT owners are blaming PR people on top of the lawyers, their own SC, First Tree, HPL, illegal contract, void contract....blah, blah, blah for being sued.Let me tell you something. You are being sued becuase you back away from a contract that you willingly signed. That is the simple truth. I hope HPL do not let these people get away doing what they did. HPL would be doing the public a great favour by frying their asses in court.------#868: The consortium is registered as Horizon Partners Pte Ltd. HPL, through its subsidiary, HPL Residential Pte Ltd, holds 40%, Horizon Investments Ltd (an entity owned by funds managed by Morgan Stanley Real Estate) holds 30%, Qatar Investment Authority holds 30%. HPL may want to sue but it depends on the other two partnersAt the moment they have not made any financial loss unless potential gains are booked. Then it will be an accounting audit issue. ------#870: This forum is turning to be than going night school. Got free law, banking and accounting lessons. Bring them on!------#882(response to #867): HPL would be doing the public a great favour by dropping the case and moving on. A lawsuit will just open up a big can of worms for everyone.------#889(response to #881): Shakespeare would have loved to have written a play about this.------#893: ... whatever it is, this whole matter is a very interesting legal test case....much like slim 10 and NKF with issues of misrepresentation, breach of contract e.t.c. in some ways, it is even more interesting with even more big legal guns involved, and many more potential litigants, some with very deep pockets. ...------#898: There could be one wild card in the coming days. STB may be increasingly nervous by realizing the international publicity this lawsuit may generate. During the trial, STB may inevitably be dragged into the debate of its competence and conduct in their assessment of the case. STB may quietly want to entice all parties to come to a out-of-court settlement to avoid any potentail embrassment themself.------#917(response to #882): HPL will do the enbloc process and Singapore's redevelopment a great disservice by dropping the case. Backing off will encourage all those enblocs signed before Feb 2007 to pull a "HT" and renege on a contract sign on good faith.2 developments I can think of, off hand, are Minton Rise and Gilman Heights. Minton Rise is due for STB hearing from 20-22 Aug this month.------#925: ... 84% Majority Seller.. whether all really the owner of HT and signed CSA.If not, then who fake the signatures..if Any, this/these person/s will go to jail. ...------#941: ... Those who call their units their home should fight on and save the homes from the bullies. It's a matter of principle and ethics. Don't sell other people's homes, else you will fry in hell. Read the commandments....------#942: So old SC members (Arjun Samtani, Chan Siew Chee, Tan Kah Gee, Claude, George, Henry and Bharat), please stand up and be accounted for. Who brought in FT? Who sneered and called Grangeford owners damn stupid? Who buy second units to profit? Who rushed the sale?------#960: there may be a suit but by HPL partners against OBS perhaps?------#962: Doesn't make sense. Either you have a strong case, or you don't. Want to sue, do it now. Otherwise just walk away and concentrate on F1.------#965(response to #962): Oooohh happy days in HT again... Yeah yeah... Woohooo.. Hubba Hubba. Buyers lose.... woohoo hubba hubba.------#984: I won't be surprised if STB isn't so keen on releasing the actual grounds for technical dismissal because I'm sure many other enblocs that took place before Feb 2007 are also keen on doing a "HT" and their STB hearing is comming up soon.------#986(response to #984): STB must release the grounds of their decision. This case is one of great public interest. Transparency must prevail.------#992: ... Some people commented in another forum that HT minority owners sell their flats to their close relatives or friends for an artificially high price to jeopardise the new CSA if there is going to be one. The new owner will then claim to the STB that they will be facing a loss if the en-bloc goes through therefore jeopardising the process. This apply to minority owners only, not to the majority whose asses are going to be fried (lagi garing) in the near future by Lord Sham.------#1000: As the law stands currently, there is no consideration of how the "financial loss" came about, or whether it was "rigged". New legislation on en-bloc sales may see some further clarification on this issue. I feel that a major overhaul of en-bloc legislation is well overdue.------#1003(response to #1000): Actually the minority can just sell at market price and that's already above the original enbloc price. There's no need to rig or show an artificially high price.------#1004(response to #1003): Yes but will anyone dare to buy in this situation?------#1005(response to #1004): the minority is not bound by the csa and not subject to any potential lawsuit by buyer.even if the enbloc reinstate, minority still has a right to object and this time STB will dismiss based on merit.------25Aug 2007: (date stamp acc forum)------#1144: I wonder how many % of sellers still honor their contract?? 60%???------#1145(response to #1144): It really doesnt matter. the SC still holds all the power to do what they want on behalf of the owners, and owners cannot really do anything about them until the CSA expires (which is when the SC has no more power).

So if SC wants to go ahead and submit a new tender, they are entitled to. If they want to do nothing, they can. If they want everyone to stand on their heads and sing Majulah, they can cos majority owners gave them the right to do anything. And if the SC lawyers advice them to do something which everyone who signed the CSA disagrees with, there is absolutely nothing that can be done so long as the CSA is not expire.------27Aug2007------#1171: ... If STB were able to process the hearing earlier say in June or July, there would be no excuse for the sellers and buyers for not "doing everthing in their power" to execute the contract.Remember STB is spending taxpayers' money to operate, there is a lot of room for improvement in its efficiency. We don't want the taxpayer's money to be wasted in such a manner!------#1173(response to #1171): STB should be sued also. ... They should have returned documents with errors back to the sellers to correct it so that sales can proceed. Instead they rejected it and thats it???------#1176(response to #1173): Why stop at STB? Why not sue the gahment? After all, the gahment made the rules that STB must process the application as is, and if there are errors, it has to be rejected. If STB yoyo back and forth everytime some joker makes a mistake, you think their oredi long queue is not going to get longer? ...------#1181: Simple solution - make enbloc illegal. Zero queue for STB application. STB member can go back to playing golf.------#1182(response to #1181): Enbloc is a must lah. If there is no enbloc, there will be a lot of old and dirty buildings everywhere. How can we develope into a new modern city if enbloc is made illegal??------#1183(response to #1182): Simple. Get rid of freehold, and all strata land becomes 30 year leasehold. At the end of 30 years, gahment take back land and resell to new developer. More money to gahment, get rid of old and dirty buildings, and make new modern city!------#1209: Must sue all HT owners to bankruptcy for being overly greedy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!------30Aug2007------$1260(response to #1209): Scenario for you....after saving hard earned money for a year, you entered into a contract that says you will be the owner of a brand new car of your favourite colour. That colour turned out to be horrific on your shiny brand new car (so much for your taste). The contract signed has a clause which is worded such that it gives you a small window to rescind the contract. Will you use it ? That is what's happening here. Doors were opened for these owners to rescind the contract and negotiation for a better one. Is it wrong for them to exercise that consideration within the legal framework ? Understand that just as you want the most from your home and other investments so do these owners. So before you make such serious accusation of owners being overly greedy, explore your heart and see if you will do differently.------

Disclaimer.Sources as defined, some from general internet resource of unverified credibility (including unmoderated forum discussions).The author wishes to remain anonymous.The author disclaims all legally enforceable liability with regard to the use of presented information.Any form of use of this production requires explicit written agreement by the author.